Monday, February 25, 2013

Sharmine Narwani Finds a Home at CiF

It isn't an easy title to win, but Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani is probably the most loathsome of all the Huffington Post bloggers, past or present. We've documented in the past her hatred for America, Israel (of course), and Huffington Post bloggers who dare to say stuff that she doesn't like. She's a liar, an anti-Semite, and a propagandist, not to mention a proud terrorism supporter. If all that doesn't convince you, check out this page of quotes here.

Of course it goes without saying that being an insulting, lying, anti-Semitic, America hating supporter of terrorism isn't enough to get one removed from the Huffington Post. That's exactly the kind of thing that they like to see. The problem is that Narwani went a bridge too far and started defending the regime in Syria while it was bombing its own people. This caused her to be removed from the Huffington Post and sent to Al-Akhbar and Veteran's Today, where presumably the readership would mirror her views to a larger degree.

Fortunately for her, she has found a website far left enough to take her in, despite this long, ugly and checkered history. This website would be the Guardian's Comment is Free section, of course! Were you expecting anything less? Narwani hits the ground running with a stalwart defense of the Assad regime in the grand tradition of calling everyone who isn't her a liar.

Here is how she starts off:

"Less than two months after the UN announced "shocking" new casualty figures in Syria, its high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay estimates that deaths are "probably now approaching 70,000". But two years into a Syrian conflict marked by daily death tolls, the question arises as to whether these kinds of statistics are helpful in any way? Have they helped save Syrian lives? Have they shamed intransigent foes into seeking a political solution? Or might they have they contributed to the escalation of the crisis by pointing fingers and deepening divisions?"
This paragraph is rich on so many levels. First of all, if the UN were to report tomorrow "shocking" numbers of Palestinians had been killed by Israel, do you think Narwani's reaction would be the same? She would use it as the perfect excuse to fight harder.

Secondly, once again the UN, so beloved when it is passing toothless resolutions bashing Israel, is thrown under the bus once again when it doesn't toe the left-wing line.

Finally, and most unbelievably, Narwani seems to be saying that if the fact that seventy thousand people are dead isn't 'helpful,' then no one should know about it. That is not only an extremely heartless point of view, it actually contributes to the ongoing fighting there. Narwani seems to want to have it both ways: if the outside world won't intervene, then no one should know about the death toll in Syria. On the other hand, if no one knows about the death toll then why would anyone intervene?

If you are wondering where she is going with this, after dismissing the death toll of 70,000 she then seeks to deny it:
"Syria's death toll leapt from 45,000 to 60,000 earlier this year, a figure gathered by a UN-sponsored project to integrate data from seven separate lists. The new numbers are routinely cited by politicians and media as fact, and used to call for foreign intervention in the conflict.
But Rami Abdulrahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), whose casualty data are part of this count, calls the UN's effort "political" and the results "propaganda"."
SOHR may claim to be opposed to the regime, but Abdulrahman and Narwani are more or less saying the same thing: that the UN's toll isn't completely accurate. I say: does it really matter whether 45,000 are dead or 60,000? The point is that way too many people are dying in a terrible, ugly conflict. Ah, but Narwani has something to say about that as well:

"But questions about the accuracy of casualty numbers is only part of the story. Dig deeper, and it's clear that this data also offers an insight into the Syrian conflict at odds with the story that this is essentially about a brutal regime killing peaceful civilians." 
Maybe I read the news with more cynicism than Narwani does, but here is what I was thinking about Syria:
1) It is a brutal regime in power. However, the rebels are also populated by Islamists.
2) The regime has no problem killing civilians if they think it will advance their interests.
3) During this fighting a lot of civilians have been killed.

I never gave the rebels a free pass and neither did most people, at least as far as I can tell. But as usual, Narwani just has to take it one step further and apologize for the Assad regime that she loves:

"It's time to stop headlining unreliable and easily politicised casualty counts, and use them only as one of several background measures of a conflict. It's essential too that the media help us avoid such manipulation by asking questions about reported deaths: how were these deaths verified? Are they combatants? Who killed them? How do we know this? Who benefits from these deaths? Was this a violent death or one caused by displacement? How is it even possible to count all these dead in the midst of raging conflict?"
Believe me, I see where this is going quite clearly. Have a good time on CiF, Narwani. You'll fit right in.

3 comments:

  1. She seems to be getting some grief in the comment section. People are confused as to why she seems to be defending the Assad regime.

    The very first comment sets the tone nicely

    "I find this piece quite disturbing. The UN publishes shocking casualty figures from a war zone and your response is that they're probably exaggerating. Yes, it's woefully inaccurate, but we know many, many people are dying. Who cares if it's out by a few thousand? "

    She should stick to slamming Israel, because she will always finds some anti-semites to applaud her 'insight'. But few are eager to join in her defending the Assad regime.

    btw, Matt...how is 11/22/63? I've been meaning to pick it up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Json,

    11/22/63 is not as much of a pageturner as some of Stephen King's other non-horror fiction, which I've enjoyed quite a bit and why I picked up 11/22/63. It is very long, like Under the Dome, but unlike Under the Dome, drags and has a lot of padding. I can't say I recommend it, but it is holding my interest and I'll keep reading. I really enjoyed Under the Dome, so if you haven't read that, I would read that book first.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hope she remeber all that when she will talk about Plaestinian casaulties.

    ReplyDelete

Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.